What strikes me is how the extraconstitutional principle of judicial supremacy is accepted by conservatives. Judicial review ought to apply only to the case in controversy. Even a Supreme Court decision is only a precedent. Now it is taken as an edict.

If prop 8 is upheld, they will just use another popular vote to try and repeal it. CA prop 22 passed by 61% in 2000, CA prop 8 passed by 52% in 2008. That’s swinging 9% in 8 years, it is probably repealable today, all they need is 51%.

What about ‘marriage’ between one man and 8 women? I’ve known men who felt - since they were very young - they always wanted more than one woman. Isn’t that today’s ‘standard’? Is that how you’ve ‘always’ felt?

Please don't take anything in the following information personally BuckeyeTexan, but there are two reasons why patriots may not be able to reasonably predict the Supreme Court's decision on the constitutionality of gay marriage.

The first reason, unfortunately, is that activist justices may wrongly ignore the Constitution just like they ignored it when they gave the green light to Obamacare. More specifically, the Supreme Court ignored that the Founding States had made the 10th Amendment to clarify that the Constituton's silence about things like healthcare means that healthcare is a 10th Amendment-protected state power issue.

Otherwise, most patriots who have at least carefully read the Constitution should have already arrived at the following conclusion about the constitutionality of gay marriage.

Liberals are fighting California's ban on gay marriage because of the equal protection clause of California's corstitution. However, reason that PC interpretations of California's equal protection clause don't hold water is this. California's equal protection clause is expressly based on the Equal Protection Clause of Section 1 of the 14th Amendment. And the reason that liberals are wrong about their interpretation of both federal and state equal protection clauses is the following.

If liberals would make the effort to read Section 2 of 14A then they would know that 14A itself discriminates on the bases of sex, age and citizenship, regardless of their wide, PG interpretation of the Equal Protections Clause of Section 1.

14th Amendment, Section 2: Representatives shall be apportioned among the several States according to their respective numbers, counting the whole number of persons in each State, excluding Indians not taxed. But when the right to vote at any election for the choice of electors for President and Vice President of the United States, Representatives in Congress, the Executive and Judicial officers of a State, or the members of the Legislature thereof, is denied to any of the male inhabitants of such State, being twenty-one years of age, and citizens of the United States (emphasis added), or in any way abridged, except for participation in rebellion, or other crime, the basis of representation therein shall be reduced in the proportion which the number of such male citizens shall bear to the whole number of male citizens twenty-one years of age in such State.

In fact, regardless of the 14A's Equal Protections Clause, the Supreme Court decided against Virginia Minor's claim that her citizenship gave her the right to vote as Minor v. Happersett shows.

So what 14A's Equal Protecions Clause does is this. When a state makes a law that discriminates on a given basis, a basis that the states have not protected with a constitutional amendment, 14A indicates that state must discriminate equally on that basis, no breaks for certain factions. And since gay marriage is not an express constitutional right, the states can prohibit gay marriage, such discrimination ultimately up to a state's legal majority voters.

Again, the loose canons concerning this issue are activist justices who are long overdue for impeachment imo.

Rubin’s argument makes no sense whatsoever. This isn’t too surprising considering how clueless and liberal she is on immigration, but still it bears pointing out.

She actually says that conservatives are to blame for the prospect of the Sup Court using the DOMA case to wipe out gay marriage bans. She says that if conservatives hadn’t pushed DOMA, then the Sup Court wouldn’t have an avenue for a sweeping national decision.

But who is to say the Sup Court would use the DOMA case for a sweeping national decision instead of the Prop 8 case? Maybe they will choose to use DOMA instead of Prop 8, but so what? If Roberts and/or Kennnedy are inclined to impose gay marriage, then it wouldn’t matter if there was no DOMA. Then they’d just use Prop 8, or some other future challenge to another state marriage amendment.

Rubin pretends like the law and the Constitution actually matter to these judges. It doesn’t. Only the outcome and their legacy matters to them, and the lack of DOMA wouldn’t change that one bit.

These words of President Adams remind us of what used to be a common idealiberty entails responsibility, and absent religion (even with it, alas) many people will choose immorality and irresponsibility. President Washington said much the same thing in his Farewell Address: Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports. . . . And let us with caution indulge the supposition that morality can be maintained without religion.2 Because the American republic is a free republic, therefore, it was designed for a religious people. That is the proper context in which to understand Adams 1790 comment on the French Revolution, I know not what to make of a republic of 30 million atheists.3 By then Adams was already on record predicting the collapse of the French revolution.

Regardless of how the court rules, democracy does matter. Public opinion over time prevails. Whether that is by judicial fiat or legislative wrangling remains to be seen. But as the country shifts from virulent opposition to gay marriage to acceptance, the laws will follow. Those who try to hold back the tide eventually get swept away.

Democracy is another name for mob rule. Yes, mob rule matters because at times it forces evil, injustice and disorder upon the people.

Yes again, those who try to hold back the tide eventually get swept away but only temporarily. The pendulum tends to swing back to reality from delusion NEVER to return again as was the case with abolition...

Homosexual sex will never be accepted as normal and never be worthy of societal privilege or benefit REGARDLESS what today's mob of useful idiots 'feels'.

I’m keeping a very close eye on the Republican party’s position on this issue. I noticed a very obvious punt by Rand Paul on FNS this morning. I thought Newt was very interesting on the issue too. “Why even have an amendment procedure when 5 of the 9 can change the constitution whenever they want”.

41 posted on 03/24/2013 8:44:55 AM PDT by DungeonMaster
( 1Cor 7:21Were you called while a slave? Do not be concerned about it;)

Don’t be surprised if the polling for gay marriage gets more in favor of it as the time gets nearer to SC hearings. This is what the lib media always does. Puts out favorable results for their miserable immoral causes that are pure fantasy.

Does anyone seriously think that what the court says will change the minds of your average Joe?

Does anyone think that no matter what is voted for, no matter what gets written down on paper as law, that that is going to make people believe something they don’t believe now?

If government and media was gone, if it was ten thousand years from now and people were struggling to survive as we have in the past, does anyone think that everyone will jump up and down and celebrate if a couple of gays decide to call themselves “married”?

It’s not natural and it’s not marriage. No legislation will convince me otherwise. No law, no vote, no TV ad campaigns, no arguments about “equality” of “family”, none of that will work.

In truth, it’s not about rights. It’s about brainwashing.

47 posted on 03/25/2013 1:15:20 AM PDT by djf
(I don't want to be safe. I want to be FREE!)